big_pth:The 1996 McCain might have made a decent president. The 2008 McCain is still trying to figure out how he lost to that idiot Dubya in 2000.

It's depressing. I at least hope that the pre-2000 vintage McCain would be appalled by this year's. I voted for him in 2000, and I would hate to think that I voted for the guy I see today.

Also, he lost to Bush in 2000 because Bush had a campaign team that expertly played on the racism of South Carolina voters, and because Bush was backed by the vast majority of the party and its donors.

Obama has over 1.5 million donors, averaging contributions around $100. McCain's 96 legislation would not have affected that at all. Even if you souped it up to include former lobbyists, family members of lobbyists, etc. etc.... how many of that 1.5 mil do you think would be excluded?

I think what you are all forgetting is that John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.

Skleenar:I think what you are all forgetting is that John McCain will put the national interest ahead of partisanship, he will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. If John McCain is elected President, the era of the permanent campaign will end. The era of problem solving will begin.

Overfiend:This site is getting more liberal then Al Franken at a Transgendered Atheist convention!

I see a higher percentage of super conservative people on Fark than I encounter in real life, and I'm a lifelong "red state" resident. It's ironic when they post on political threads complaining about how liberal Fark is, since the frequency of their posts indicates otherwise.

jaylectricity:Overfiend: When did Fark turn into Huffington Post Lite?

This site is getting more liberal then Al Franken at a Transgendered Atheist convention!

Judging by the ever-tightening of the censorship belt on this site, I can't see how Fark could be getting MORE liberal.

Unless you are talking about the liberal reaction to having freedoms taken away.

It's possible he's one of the people who label all anti-Bush people as "liberals". Of course, by that definition most of the country is "liberal" now. In reality just as many are moderates and true conservatives as liberals. Mainstream Democrats in this country are NOT liberals, either, by the way.

impaler:Sammy Jenkins: Except McCain was the one who wanted to make it law, shiathead.

And it isn't one.

So he should handicap himself to appease morons like you?

He should follow his convictions, regardless of what the law actually says. Or else, he should just say that he's been doing nothing but wasting time in finance reform, because he doesn't really believe in it.

But given his Alzheimer's I doubt he even remembered introducing that bill in 1996.

StillH2O:It's possible he's one of the people who label all anti-Bush people as "liberals". Of course, by that definition most of the country is "liberal" now. In reality just as many are moderates and true conservatives as liberals. Mainstream Democrats in this country are NOT liberals, either, by the way.

shutup! The reality of which you speak is far too complex for my simple mind to handle!

Ninja Wicked:That's not the point. the point is that McCain has flip-flopped on his campaign finance position. Flip flop flip flop.

No, he didn't flip flop. Having lost the battle to get this thing enacted (you caught that, right -- it didn't pass) he chose not to unilaterally disarm. That doesn't make him a flip-flopper, it makes him not an idiot.

As it happens, I believe that Senator McCain is hugely and tragically wrong about his approach to campaign finance reform. But I don't expect him to adhere a non-law unilaterally.

Manfred J. Hattan:Ninja Wicked: That's not the point. the point is that McCain has flip-flopped on his campaign finance position. Flip flop flip flop.

No, he didn't flip flop. Having lost the battle to get this thing enacted (you caught that, right -- it didn't pass) he chose not to unilaterally disarm. That doesn't make him a flip-flopper, it makes him not an idiot.

As it happens, I believe that Senator McCain is hugely and tragically wrong about his approach to campaign finance reform. But I don't expect him to adhere a non-law unilaterally.

Remote? Obama's dealings with Tony may have never been prosecuted by the law, but despite his high-minded politics, Barack is no purer - and no smarter - than any other sleazy Illinois political hack. In Illinois every politician's greatest weakness is for the "generous contributor". Savory or not, they want the cash.

Barack wouldn't even say no when Rezko cooked up a deal to help Barack buy his Georgian-revival home.

Barack lived in the house that Tony swindled for him, and you call that "remote".